Imagine if court was deceived over the claim there was no call from whf to JB?

[mike tesko]

I can see your argument.  Nevetheless, nobody on here has seen the metered document in question.  Why couldn't the defence have got their own copies if it was useful to them?

Because, before the trial began or commenced, the prosecution and defence agreed certain facts, which meant that valuable court time would not be taken up - one such agreed fact (without agreement or knowledge of  Jeremy) was that full itemised call bills were not available to prove one way or another that such a call had been made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time. No mention or consideration was given in this agreement to the existence of metered call logs, which provided information in the form of used units relating to particular times of the day and night, and that individual records including length of individual calls could be analysed to see if any one or more logged metered call within the relevant period might fit the circumstances of the call which Jeremy said he received from his father at the scene? It appears that the prosecution sought to imply that any reference to itemised call logs and metered call logs were the same thing, and that neither existed - when all along, itemised call logs with details of individual call lengths, did exist...

Furthermore...

That an analysis of this information could produce evidence that was consistent with such a call having taken place...

[jon]

Yes jon but everything is digital now, in those days everything was more complicated.

I appreciate that , but every account ends at a certain date quarterly , monthly or whatever , does it not ? So does the bill just roll up till the cut off date or does it add up daily ?

[Patti]

are yes of course your right.

so if the call was made it should be on the phone bill.

Hi Nugnug

I don't think the calls would have shown up on a phone bill at that time. However,  they must have known that a customer had made a call when, where and at what time in order to bill them for the call....It's ludicrous to think otherwise..

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget   how are you well I hope.  What about gas

Very well Susan, thank you, I hope you are too

Same with gas.

[nugnug]

i still cant understand why ralph would call the local number and not 999.

[susan]

Hi Bridget (stop yawning) when I get my phone bill it shows every call i.e. date number time duration and cost but I suppose back in 1985 it would not have been advanced as it is now.

[mike tesko]

i still cant understand why ralph would call the local number and not 999.

Because Ralph was aware that the attack alarm was not linked to the 999 system, it was linked to his local police station, at Witham...

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget (stop yawning) when I get my phone bill it shows every call i.e. date number time duration and cost but I suppose back in 1985 it would not have been advanced as it is now.

Yes, things are very different now (although I still struggle to get anything vaguely intelligable from any of the utility companies).

[susan]

Hi nugnug pehaps at the time of the call he thought him and Jeremy could sort things out he was a very private man and did not like a big fuss. Perhaps Sheila had had outbursts before who knows.

[Patti]

If they could they wouldn't keep bugging me for meter readings.

But you're missing my point. Mike's theory over the standard / peak rates or whatever on the phones assumes that BT keep records of everyones' usage on at least a daily basis. What I'm suggesting is that they don't. The code dialled and time of day tell the 'meter' what rate to charge and it simply clocks up the units for the various categories of charge. At the end of the billing period you get a bill which simply tells you the total.

But that meter has to be read.....Ok then what if a customer had disputed several calls, would the meter reading be able to tell if it had made a mistake? Surely the meter would give you a proper reading...and tell you what calls you made and when....

We have seen evidence on the March bill that Mike showed us that local calls could be read....so in theory it shows that it could be done....There is room to doubt here....

[Bridget]

But that meter has to be read.....Ok then what if a customer had disputed several calls, would the meter reading be able to tell if it had made a mistake? Surely the meter would give you a proper reading...and tell you what calls you made and when....

We have seen evidence on the March bill that Mike showed us that local calls could be read....so in theory it shows that it could be done....There is room to doubt here....

I imagine the same thing would happen as it would if I tell the electricity company I didn't use my kettle that day. They'd say they didn't have that level of information and tell me how accurate their meter (or whatever the phone equivalent) is. If they had that sort of info then they wouldn't have had to upgrade the exchanges in order to provide itemised billing would they?

Nothing in the March stuff shows that local calls could be 'read', it doesn't even show any details of local calls - explain?

[mike tesko]

I imagine the same thing would happen as it would if I tell the electricity company I didn't use my kettle that day. They'd say they didn't have that level of information and tell me how accurate their meter (or whatever the phone equivalent) is. If they had that sort of info then they wouldn't have had to upgrade the exchanges in order to provide itemised billing would they?

Nothing in the March stuff shows that local calls could be 'read', it doesn't even show any details of local calls - explain?

Of course it does - it shows that individual calls could be broken down to a particular time of day or night, and how long each call (individually) lasted. The evidence could not be any clearer. All calls could be broken down into individual elements, showing the time of day or night a particular call was made (Cheap rate, Peak rate and Standard rate, charges applied), which was available to the engineers and to the police or the security serveices long befire 1986 - youi cannot hang on the fact that officially itmeised billing was not in the public domain until long after Augfust 1985, to suggest that it was not possible to obtain such information about individual calls, if the engineers could produce that information by other means for the police if requested to do so...


The detail contained in metered call logs provided sufficient information for the police or any of the security services to work with to check whether calls were made or not from a particular telephone line, under the metered call log facility. It is nothing but a smoke screen to suggest that because itemised phone bills did not officially come on line until 1986, that there was no way prior to this that any information was available to the engineers and technicians to be able to do the very same thing using the metered call log system? The other thing to remember is that before the itemised billing came on stream in 1986, it must have been possible for the engineers to produce corresponding information from the metered call logs, so that a program could be implemented to produce the itemized billing which came later?

[Jane]

Because, before the trial began or commenced, the prosecution and defence agreed certain facts, which meant that valuable court time would not be taken up - one such agreed fact (without agreement or knowledge of  Jeremy) was that full itemised call bills were not available to prove one way or another that such a call had been made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time. No mention or consideration was given in this agreement to the existence of metered call logs, which provided information in the form of used units relating to particular times of the day and night, and that individual records including length of individual calls could be analysed to see if any one or more logged metered call within the relevant period might fit the circumstances of the call which Jeremy said he received from his father at the scene? It appears that the prosecution sought to imply that any reference to itemised call logs and metered call logs were the same thing, and that neither existed - when all along, itemised call logs with details of individual call lengths, did exist...

Furthermore...

That an analysis of this information could produce evidence that was consistent with such a call having taken place...

Out of interest, Mike, when defence and prosecution have this cosy tete a tete, over afternoon tea or perhaps a good old malt? who concedes what to whom? Surely neither side will give away something which might be useful to the other side and how much of the outcome of the trial is sorted out at this level. In relation to Jeremy's case, did the defence think the outcome was such a walkover that they conceded things they shouldn't have.

[Patti]

I imagine the same thing would happen as it would if I tell the electricity company I didn't use my kettle that day. They'd say they didn't have that level of information and tell me how accurate their meter (or whatever the phone equivalent) is. If they had that sort of info then they wouldn't have had to upgrade the exchanges in order to provide itemised billing would they?

Nothing in the March stuff shows that local calls could be 'read', it doesn't even show any details of local calls - explain?

You are making it all up Bridget....A phone meter records calls...electric records units....poppycock!!!

The evidence is there in 1985 and it is clear that a call could be recorded from that meter...It shows call from WHF to Northampton in March 1985 so it could be done...1-0 to me hahahahahah 

[Bridget]

Mike. I can only assume that you are looking at something other than the logs you sent out by email and which I posted in the other thread. Those logs do not show call durations or dates for individual local calls.